In the movie "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles", two men drive confidently
down a road.
They can't see beyond their headlights. They notice a couple driving on a
road alongside them, shouting, "You're going the wrong way!" The men mock
the couple's warning. Only when they see the headlights of oncoming traffic
do they realize they should have paid attention and reversed direction. What
happens next makes the movie a comedy.

In the book the Road to Serfdom, Freidrich Hayek shouts out a warning to the
socialists
of his day that they are going the wrong way. He claimed that the socialist
political path would lead not to equality, security nor prosperity. What
happens next made Germany a tragedy. The book cries out, that centrally
planned societies are doomed to destruction. Their democratic aspects would
collide with their coercive drive. His shout echoes today, on the edge of
the millenium. Should we still listen?

We have seen the collapse of socialist states like Nazi Germany and Soviet
Russia. The Internet runs free throughout the world. New challenges of
environmentalism and terrorism are emerging. Is the Road to Serfdom relevant
to the twentieth-century?

There are those who think that we are still headed down the road to social
serfdom.
In the Road to Serfdom's introduction, Milton Friedman says that "In some
ways (the book) is even more relevant to the United States today than…on its
original publication in 1944." He claims that "government today spends a
larger fraction of the national income and is more intrusive than it was in
1950." He argues that today's political leaders "preach individualism and
competitive capitalism, and practice socialism."

Where are our leaders leading us? At NATO's 50th anniversary in Washington,
D.C., five world leaders gathered to discuss the political direction of
their countries. Led by U.S. president Bill Clinton, they talked about the
political movement loosely defined as "The Third Way". The May/June 1999
issue of the New Democrat notes that British Prime Minister Tony Blair
"described the Third Way as 'a voyage of rediscovery' being undertaken by
center-left governments as they seek to strike a balance between the
imperatives of economic dynamism and social justice." Blair claimed that
"The Old Left tried to resist change…and became associated with high taxes,
[special] interests, big government." He argues that "The New Right thought
the solution to everything was just to get rid of government…[practice]
economics of laissez-faire…indifferent to what was actually breaking apart
the bonds of society."

A Third Way out of this problem is suggested by Blair's fellow traveler,
German Prime Minister Gerhard Schroeder. He suggests that "we need to make
sure that as many people as possible share in the opportunities [and]
responsibilities within the society." How? "We need economic growth," he
says "to provide economic opportunities for as many people as possible."
Once we have economic growth, he says, "in market economies we have a moral
right, an entitlement to education [and] a job afterwards." If the state
provides this entitlement to those unable to support themselves in a market
economy without "social solidarity", Schroeder argues that that social
solidarity "is a two-way street". He says that "he who does not comply with
his duties and responsibilities should lose his original entitlement to
support by the state."

("Otherwise," Schroeder notes knowingly, "the people who earn the money will
finally say they're no longer ready to support the weak ones." But that's
another book entirely.)

The "Third Way" seeks to solve the conflict between capitalist and socialism
by uniting those who seek economic dynamism and social justice within the
same society. Italian Prime Minister Massimo D'Alema rhetorically asks, "Is
it possible to have a dynamic economy and a society based on solidarity? I
think it is." Words like these seem to verify Friedman's claim of a pro-free
enterprise preaching, socialist-practicing polity.

Some current observers don't seem to recognize this. Liberal economist Jeff
Faux in Dissent Spring 99 argues that the Third Way represents a selling out
of liberal ideals to the Right. He quips that "The Third Way has become so
wide that it is more like a political parking lot than a highway to anywhere
in particular." Not so. The Third Way seems in some respects to be a highway
out of yesterday.

It recalls a path out of the past -- the pre-Nazi Germany socialist past.
This is particularly true if we see it through the lens of F.A. Hayek's 1944
book "The Road To Serfdom". The Third Way may ultimately lead us down the
road to serfdom and back to the time of the Third Reich.

Hayek defines socialism as the ideal and means of creating "freedom from
necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably
limit the range of choice of all of us, although for some very much more
than for others." Specifically, socialists seek release from the "restraints
of the economic system" - the uncoerced capitalist system. What this
amounted to, for Hayek, "was that the great existing disparities in the
range of choice of different people were to disappear…The demand for the new
freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for an equal
distribution of wealth."

Our leaders seem to echo this demand for socialist equality in their calls
for "solidarity". The solidarity of which they speak is that of the forcing
the capitalists they leave free to produce to support those who are not as
successful in a free market of citizens. As Netherlands Prime Minister Kok
remarks, "People who cannot take care of themselves must be protected in a
decent way." Who must protect them? Kok has an answer to this. "We have a
community [only] if the winners feel responsible for the losers." There is
no talk of a time when the winners should not feel responsible for problems
they did not cause.

This policy is a shadow of the trend in Hayek's time for central planning.
It is distinct from Hayek's fear of forcing prosperity through central
planning that is the main thesis of the Road. Taken at face value, with no
political double-speak, this represents progress towards freedom. Former
socialists can see that central planning for prosperity doesn't work, and
don't pursue that path anymore. But they cannot free themselves from the past.

Indeed, they still overtly cling to central planning for charity. As current
London School of Economics Director (and Third Way theorist) Dr. Anthony
Giddens argues, "No one knows any alternative to capitalism. Marx's
alternative is dead. Our problem is to find a global market society that is
humane, which follows some of the values Marx identified, that is consistent
with solidarity, that doesn't produce polarization. You remember that Marx
argued that capitalism produces a polarization between rich and poor. In
this he seems to be right. How can we control inequality while delivering
the fruits of economic development? is a really basic issue facing us."

Friedman notes that modern-day planners aims have "shifted from
governmentally administered production activities to indirect regulation of
supposedly private enterprises and even more to governmental transfer
programs, involving extracting taxes from some in order to make grants to
others--all in the name of equality and the eradication of poverty." The
Third Way follows this trend. But as Hayek noted, "Once government has
embarked upon planning for the sake of justice, it cannot refuse
responsibility for anybody's fate or position. In a planned society we
shall know that we are better or worse off than others…because some
authority wills it." And authority wills solidarity.

The need for authority to redistribute economic prosperity to the economic
"losers" and a consequent increase of "losers" has produced "an erratic and
contradictory melange of subsidies to special interest groups" in society.
The final end of a force-fed society is "the state in which 'no avenue to
wealth and honor would exist save through the government'". Fully successful
solidarity, if defined as forced total equalization of society, requires a
progressively increasing and gradual takeover of society by government.
Thus the Third Way's socialist elements would lead not to freedom from
failure, but to serfdom.

As Hayek notes," "Planning leads to dictatorship because dictatorship is the
most effective instruments of coercion and the enforcement of ideals and, as
such, essential if central planning on a large scale is to be possible. The
clash between planning and democracy arises simply from the fact that the
latter is an obstacle to the suppression of freedom which the direction of
economic activity requires."

How long will it be until those on the path to democratically agreed upon
economic freedom collide with those seeking socially guaranteed economic
wealth? How long will independent producers and government-dependent
"losers" travel along the Third Way until they see the headlights of
opposite-traveling traffic, dead straight ahead? How much longer until the
next crash? As Hayek aptly observes about properly applied laws, "It does
not matter whether we all drive on the left or on the right-hand side of the
road so long as we all do the same."

The Third Way must ultimately lead somewhere. Hayek argues that it leads to
the Third Reich. "If we are, nevertheless, rapidly moving toward such a
state (of complete centralization of economic activity), this is largely
because most people still believe that it must be possible to find some
middle way between "atomistic" competition and central direction. (A)
mixture of the two ways means that neither will really work and the result
will be worse than if either system had been consistently relied upon."

Which will happen first - the abandonment of centrally planned solidarity
because of the proven failure of centrally planned prosperity, or the
reacceptance of both ideals because forced charity is tied to free markets?
This is the danger of the Third Way.

Clearly, the Road to Serfdom is relevant to the current political scene at
it provides insights into the old political balance which the new one builds
on. The relevance comes through its ability to provide context and
explanation of current politics like as the Third Way. Lest the Third Way's
"voyage of rediscovery" go down the road to serfdom and holocaust, our
leaders must be warned until we turn back and go down the right way.

Who will warn our leaders they're going the wrong way? On the 100th
anniversary of Hayek's birth, over 150 people gathered at the F.A. Hayek
auditorium in Washington, D.C. to celebrate Hayek's legacy. I overheard a
few of them talk about Hayek's book.

"How could it not be relevant to the next century?" said a former student of
Hayek's. "With our monetary policy being centrally directed by the Federal
Reserve, and the opposition party seeking to imitate the Third Way, how
could it not be? One of my teacher friends teaches the Road in his
university classes. I may imitate his example. The book's an oldie but a
goodie."

"The book is like a fine wine", said another guest as she poured a glass of
cherry wine, "it gets better with age. We saw that communism collapsed of
its own weight. Hayek _forsaw_ it. The ideas he argues can be empirically
tested through twentieth-century history. The more centrally planned
governance fails, the more power to Hayek's case."

"This book gives me courage to speak out against the Third Way." the gay
young man in the corner confided. "When I read Hayek's words, I feel that I
can carry on his legacy. His arguments give me a base to stand on, to at
least question their assumptions. I am just happy to know someone like Hayek
lived."

Somebody said, "Nobody's really arguing for central planning anymore. That
part of the book is not really relevant to today's world. But it holds well
in light of partial planning of today. Particularly since the fall of the
Soviet Union, there are few places left to go if you want to go Red. So that
danger is gone for now, if not forever. However, people forget the past, and
every new generation needs to recall it. The World Wars and the ideas that
caused them seem so far away - but they happened 50 years ago - only
yesterday. How far away from us are the wars of the future - and in which
direction are they in? For lack of extant examples of a purely totalitarian
system like Nazi Germany only books like the Road to Serfdom that keep us
from going down the highway to hell."

"No, the book doesn't explain how to make employers more responsive to
employees, or how to run profitably run a non-profit. But it should be read
by people trying to make the decision of what they want the government to be
doing while they try to live life, and what they *don't* want the government
to do! The book's like a highway out of yesterday - the yesterday out of a
wrongfully restricted life and its failures and into the free world that
tomorrow may bring if we make the right choices." her companion added.

A Chinese doctoral candidate in Austrian economics chimed in thoughtfully.
"The book is timeless and not bound by the space of nations. I read it back
home in China. It helps that the book does not criticize their opponents by
their motives. We have much persuading of the Chinese leaders before we turn
back from the way we are today. The problems it addresses affect people who
have to choose between free dealings with each other or not, regardless of
their race or whatnot. This book helps me looks at China from the outside."

"It holds up well when compared to later studies like the Ominous Parallels
by Leonard Peikoff. Part of its appeal in the next century will be its age.
It emotes the experience of the day. The author's courageous stand and the
risk he took to speak against authority grant the book its authenticity. It
was way out in right field when I first read it, but I predict it will be
part of the book canon of the next century!"

To be fair, those going the Third Way *think* they're going the right way.
Our leaders should at least listen to those who elected them. It is up to
someone to warn them. Will you?

As Hayek wrote, "If most people are not willing to see the difficulty, this
is mainly because, consciously or unconsciously, they assume that it will be
they who will settle these questions for the others, and because they are
convinced of their own capacity to do this justly and equitably." The book
is relevant as long as this is true. It will always be.

So lest our leaders seek the leads in a political tragi-comedy, those who
can should offer them a copy of the Road to Serfdom and inform them of its
relevance to them. Just say: